Male Voters League | Men's issues, politics, and news

Obama evolves to support gay marriage

Why does government have to define "marriage?"

The President made it official: he voiced his support for same-sex couples to be legally married. President Obama has moved from previous views that marriage was defined as man and woman, to providing equal rights through civil unions and has now evolved to his current belief that same-sex marriage should be law. The timing of this comes just after North Carolina voted to ban gay marriage. While, I am grateful that the President has finally made his decision as to which side of the fence he will stand on this issue, it is a side that I don’t fully agree with.

While I tend to lean very much to the left, I am more of a traditionalist when it comes to the social issue of marriage. For me, I believe that marriage has less to do with civil rights and more to do with religious tradition. In fact, I believe that civilly, under the law, all legal marriages should simply be civil unions and the government should remove itself from the marriage equation. This allows all couples – heterosexual, homosexual, etc., to have equal civil liberties while not forcing our government to determine what the term “marriage” should mean. Let religious organizations solemnize a union into a marriage according to their own beliefs and traditions. I suppose this makes my stance on same-sex marriage more like that of the Libertarians than of the Republicans or Democrats.

Nevertheless, President Obama has created a polarizing event in his announcement of support of same-sex marriages. While I am not sure as to how this may affect the general election in six months; I am sure that we will be hearing about this decision from the talking heads on both sides of the aisle. It may also further the disunity that we are experiencing here in America by causing fence sitters to make a decision. While I don’t suspect many will change their vote based on this issue, there are some that will. Maybe this is me being insensitive, but It is frustrating to me that during this time of great economic concern that our focus is shifted back to social issues and away from the major problems that plague this country.

Are Christians liberal?

They are! Just not in America.

“Christians more likely to be left-wing and have liberal views on immigration and equality.” Wait…what’s wrong with this statement? It is a true statement; just not true here in America. Christians in the United Kingdom seem to float more to the left than their American counterparts.

As reported over at Salon, the London’s Daily Mail summed up a report that found in England religious people are active citizens who are more likely to volunteer, donate more to charity, and are more likely to be politically progressive. They tend to value equality and tend to be more welcoming of immigrants as neighbors.

One of the problems I have with Christians here in America is that there often seems to be a disconnect, bordering on hypocrisy, between the Christian values of peace, love and tolerance and the often touted views of the gun-toting, social Darwin-like, anti-neighbor extreme right. Here in America, religious populations tend to be the opposite of their British counterparts when it comes to politics.

So, contrary to American beliefs, we see devoted Christians in another country are the more progressive ones on economics. I’m sure that they too believe the Bible and are trying to follow its precepts. Only, they choose to see that the Christian Bible is filled with liberal economic sentiment.

So, which political view of the Bible and the teaching of Jesus are correct? There are of course the social issues that move many Christian’s to the right here in America. However, those who cite Christianity to justify their economic conservatism may not have fully read or understand the Bible. A reading of the Sermon on the Mount would cause many to rethink their political stance. Jesus could be considered a progressive in his views. I think it would be an interesting study to take all proclaimed devout Christians in this country and ask that they spend 15 minutes a day, over the course of the next month or two, reading through the New Testament. In doing so, I wonder how many would move more to the center (or even to the left)?

Americans elect

New online nominating process

If you are like me, you have already become tired of the rhetoric of the left and the right leading up to this November’s Presidential Election. It seems that both the Democrats and the Republicans have lost touch with mainstream America. With the current crop of politicians, we are forced to choose between big business or big government. Yet, it seems that somewhere in the middle is what we should be working on. Maybe it’s time for America to look outside the two mainstream parties for our country’s leadership.

Doing a quick Google search for third parties brings an interesting list of mix of political ideaologies. Green Party, Communists, even Nazi. Yet, there are also a variety of grass roots parties focused on the middle – or moderate solution. One group that is trying to bring together the best of the third party candidates is Americans Elect (www.americanselect.org). Americans Elect is a nonpartisan nomination process that uses the Internet to give every single voter—Democrat, Republican or independent—the power to nominate a presidential ticket in 2012.

Americans Elect claims their process is open to any qualified candidate and any registered voter—no matter their party. With no ties to any political group—left, right, or center, they are trying to attract serious, qualified presidential candidates. Some of the candidates that have either singned on, or are being courted for this process include Buddy Roemer (former Governor of Louisiana), Rocky Anderson (former Mayor of Salt Lake City), Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman, and Mike Bloomberg.

For those who want leaders that put country before party, and American interests before special interests, Americans Elect may prove an interesting experiment online nominating process set to prove that America is ready for a competitive, nonpartisan ticket. Maybe it is time to find leaders who will work together to develop fresh solutions to the serious challenges facing our country.

The GOP VP campaign begins

Santorum and Gingrich are in

After expressing that another four years with President Obama would be better than having Mitt Romney as President, Rick Santorum is now throwing his hat in to be the Vice Presidential candidate. In other developments, Newt Gingrich has scaled back his organization by laying off 1/3 of his staff and focusing his efforts on the nominating convention itself. It seems that Romney’s nomination inevitability is becoming a reality to the other contenders.

Santorum’s recent comments about being willing to serve as Vice President stems from his desire to “do whatever is necessary to help our country.” Apparently he feels that by being the Anti-Romney in a Romney Presidency will keep Romney to the right and not back to his moderate past. Maybe Santorum wants to be the super glue that keeps the Etch-a-Sketch stationary. Or maybe Santorum’s blind ambition hopes that serving with Romney will prove a stepping stone to the Presidency. Either way, it seems odd that the man who claims Romney is the wrong man to lead this country is the one asking to lead with him.

Newt Gingrich is also vowing to support Romney and is offering himself up as Vice President as well. All this while laying off staff and determining to take his fight to the convention. So, the GOP drama continues. However, the drama is moving from the race for the Presidential candidacy and now to the desire to grab power wherever they can. If this race is still a circus, it seems Romney has now been crowned the ring master with the clowns surrounding him. Unfortunately it appears that none of them can really tame or lead the elephant which is stomping around the country.

McCain Counsels Romney

"Focus more on the economy"

Senator John McCain has been making the rounds in the last few months – almost as if he were campaigning. He stopped by Meet the Press to offer a few thought for Mitt Romney’s campaign. “He’s got to focus more on the economy,” said McCain. McCain has endorsed the former Massachusetts governor. Is it irony that McCain is suggesting Romney, a 1%er, focus more on the economy? It seems that every time Mitt opens his mouth about the economy he is sticking his foot in it and reminding America just how far removed he really is from most of us.

Yet, McCain also believes that Romney is “improving dramatically as a candidate.” I’m not sure what is meant by that statement. Was Romney sub-par before and is just the best of the field, according to McCain? Did McCain always consider him the best chance to lead America, but got side tracked by Romney’s campaigning” Whichever it is, one thing is certain – McCain, who lost to Obama, is behind Mitt.

Senator, a once supporter of campaign finance change, also expressed his distaste for super PACs, which he believes have driven up unfavorable views of candidates because of the negative ads they produce. Okay, I have got to agree with McCain on this one. SuperPACs have added nothing positive to the political process. Instead, they have only added to the belief that money rules politics. If Mitt Romney didn’t have so much money behind him, would he still be squeaking by with delegate votes when many in the GOP have a great distaste for him?

And, when asked about the tone of this year’s political fight, McCain noted, “This is the nastiest I have ever seen.” And…we are still in the primaries and haven’t even hit the general election rhetoric yet.

The Party of Lincoln No More

Women’s Health Care and Abolition

Over the past couple of weeks, as some Republicans have attacked women’s healthcare, it has struck me that this is no longer the “Party of Lincoln.” To be fair, I cannot assert that Abraham Lincoln would be a Democrat today. Fairer still, my own Democratic Party has also over time meandered away from its 19th century focus. I am grateful for modern, more progressive Presidents from both parties who have carefully negotiated the expanding role of government under our Constitution; always taking care to preserve government of, by, and for the people, according to the immortal words of President Abraham Lincoln.

I encourage the Republicans to re-think their stance on women’s health issues. There are more worthwhile issues to battle Democrats over. It is not that women’s healthcare is not worthwhile. It is that Republicans have – amazingly – chosen the losing side of the issue. One cannot seek to take away from women in the pre-season, and expect a post-season victory. In 1919, the Republican Party controlled both houses of Congress, and passed the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution giving women the right to vote (upon ratification). The Party of Lincoln found it essential to be on the right side of Abolition and on the right side of Women’s Suffrage. Why do they seem prone to choose the wrong side on the issue of women’s health? Let’s not forget that many of those women using contraceptives have male partners who also vote and who want the women in their life to enjoy access to contraceptives. Additionally, insurance companies would much rather pay for a year’s worth of pills than a live birth. I just don’t see how the Republicans can win on this issue they seem to be so willing to wedge into our dialogue today. I don’t think Abraham Lincoln would see a winning hand in this either.

As a Democrat, I am hoping that the women of America (and the men in their lives) are still feeling the sting in their faces when they cast their ballots in November.

GOP Political Vertigo

Which way is up when it comes to governemnt spending and the economy?

Our county’s economic situation is complicated at best. On one hand unemployment is decreasing, stocks are up, and their appears to be an economic recovery in the works. On the other hand, gas prices are skyrocketing, together with grocery prices and other related services. No matter what side of the political spectrum you find yourself, one thing is clear – more needs to be done to continue the economic recovery.

I like my retirement plan and that I am starting to see it rise as the stock market continues to work its way upward. However, I don’t live in the future and my pocketbook is concerned with the increase in fuel prices. As we look to the Presidential election later this year, the economy will be top on everyone’s mind. Yet, President Obama won’t take any responsibility for gas prices (but he will for lowered unemployment). I understand we live in a free market and the government has, or should have, a limited role in business, but I do believe that the President has the ability to influence and persuade industry.

With this in mind, you would think that the Republican presidential candidates would be pushing specific plans that would help reduce government spending, reduce gas prices, and put more money in our pockets. Well…1/2 out of three ain’t bad, right? Yes, the Republicans would put more money back in the richest Americans pockets (that’s the 1/2) but the rest of it is being ignored. In fact, three of the four candidates would have Federal debt increased and Ron Paul’s plan would keep it where it is at. Wait…is that right? Aren’t they campaigning against huge deficits and overspending, and yet their plans would only increase the deficit?

Here I am, trying to balance my budget on the home front while being lied to by GOP contenders who express dismay at government spending and make plans to increase that spending. I feel like asking which way is up? Maybe the GOP is experiencing some form of political vertigo and they are the ones that can't tell which way is up.

Republican Mystery Candidate Emerges

What the "right" will do to win!

Back in January, Mike Huckabee with CNN posed the question, “Could a mystery candidate for GOP race still emerge?” Well, the Onion has reported that yes, indeed, the Republicans have a Mystery Candidate and will reveal the identity of said Mystery Candidate only after he, or she, wins the election. Not only will the candidate be revealed upon winning the election, but the Republicans will also reveal the contents of a secret briefcase that holds the cure to all our economic woes.

Okay, there really is no mystery candidate or secret briefcase. However, the irony here is that if there was even a possibility of such a tactic working, the Republicans would probably give it a try. Why not? With the final four candidates in this circus tent known as the nomination process, and the economy on the rise, the Republicans need to try something to make the electorate think the Republicans even have a chance.

Many Republican voters still can’t show much enthusiasm for their likely standard-bearer, Mitt Romney. So far, Romney has not shown that he can connect with and excite voters. Maybe it’s because Romney reminds the GOP electorate of two previous Democratic stiff – Al Gore and John Kerry. The resemblance isn’t so much in their polices and beliefs, but in their wooden characterizations and flexible views. Both Kerry and Gore lost winnable races because of their flawed personalities, does Mitt Romney face a similar fate?

Besides the stiff factor, with Obama’s approval rating at 50 percent, and voters believing Obama would do a better job than Romney on protecting the middle class and dealing with taxes, international affairs and terrorism, and lowering unemployment, it seems that a mystery candidate may be the only way the GOP can stir enough interest to move back into the election game.

What is it with single issue voters?

"Single issue voters have a distorted impression of political reality."

I have a family member who voted for President Obama in the last general election. She is a moderate who generally voted Republican in the past. However, in the last election she was concerned that the country would continue going down the same path with McCain as with Bush. So, she voted for Obama. Now, after the State of the Union (2012) speech, she has decided that she will most likely vote for Republican in the presidential election, no matter who that is.

Why this change? President Obama didn’t say anything new or create a real game changer at the State of the Union. In fact, most of what he said were items reiterated from previous speeches. While he expressed displeasure with our current do-nothing congress, Obama sees the economy moving in the right direction and wants to continue that forward progress, even if it is a little slow. So, no radical changes. Despite that, there is really nothing to point to as to why a previous Obama supporter would jump ship – he passed (a watered down version of) universal health care, ended don’t-ask-don’t-tell, is bringing troops home, defeated bin Laden, and more.

Well, the reason that she wants to move back to the Republicans is because President Obama made reference to beefing up the higher education system. And…according to her “doesn’t he know that states support higher education, not the feds?” She works in higher education. So, because she sees this as a mis-speak by the President and also may have concerns that Obama is trying to nationalize higher education, she is now willing to change her vote.

Single issue voters have a distorted impression of political reality. By putting all their eggs in one basket, they ignore the candidate's other views, which may or may not correspond with the voter’s. In a way, a single issue voter is like a lobbyist focusing only on the one issue they want to see take center stage. Unfortunately, all this does is creates more room for disappointment. I believe that we should look at the candidates for the whole of what they bring to the table. Just like our system of government – majority wins. The candidate whose views as a whole represent mine, gets my vote.

Romney refused $100,000 bonus

Romney, a famous and very successful American CEO, refused a bonus of $100,000, saying that no executive needed to make more than $225,000, his salary at the time. Oh - that was George Romney in 1960, whose son Mitt was 13 at the time and who one might have hoped was listening. But, it seems that Mitt either didn’t hear his father, or disagrees with him.

The $225,000 that George Romney was making in 1960 is equivalent to $1.4 million today. Everyone knows that CEOs who used to make 12 times the average worker’s salary now make 300 times, or more. Many try to say that a CEOs job is much more complex in today’s global age. But it’s not just CEOs, musicians, athletes, etc., along with law-firm partners, university presidents, television news anchors, and so on are experiencing this same type of income inflation. Yet, is compensation really tied to job performance? Walter Cronkite, who almost always led the ratings, never made more than $1 million a year (that would be $2.6 million today). Katie Couric, who rarely led the ratings, made $15 million a year.

Creators and inventors have earned it their wages. Professional athletes and actors are, assumably, the best in their fields. Overpaid, maybe, but both these classes have, nevertheless, done something creative or inventive to benefit society and/or inspire people. Now we turn to Romney. Private equity isn’t creative or inventive or beneficial for society. Yes, they do help some, but it’s mostly about making more money for the investor class—very much including Romney himself.

Romney believes that questions about his business background are examples of “bitter politics of envy.” I’m not envious of Romney’s fortune or how he earned it, I’m more concerned about civic responsibility, virtue, and decency. Shouldn’t our President exude such? Or are we simply looking for someone who can make a lot of money, maybe at our expense?

Pages